This isn't about a superhero having ethics, it is about very human moral obligations - Peter comes off a douche and someone who puts his own needs above those of others at the end. I don't read the comics, but this is a horrible little ending. You know, it is expected one day Peter would break the promise, because that is the sort of thing these stories do - but at least give him a journey to that point.

Fair enough, but we're assuming here that because of that scene that they're instantly back together, and that may not be the case. I take your point, but I'll wait and see what happens with the next movie.

"The best promises are the ones you can't keep" or whatever he says indicates that he has no intention to abiding by Capt. Stacey's request.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

After Raimi' 3rd installment which I found laughable, I was excited to see a reboot minus Tobey 'so cheesy' Maguire. Garfield was amazing and I think made a much more believable Spider-man than Maguire <a href= "www.welovemoviesmorethanyou.com">Seefullreview</a>

Only difference of note is that Parker is now "cool" rather than the limp-wristed Maguire performance. Glad they followed the comics, which should hopefully lead to the Goblin back for Amazey-balls 2. (cue Gwen's snappy exit from the series). Was entertaining enough, but with the AMAZING reaction from seeing Raimi's Spiderman for the first time still fresh in my mind, this does little more to inspire.

I agree with Girv although probably not with the same passion, that line was uneccessry and is pretty damaging to the sequel as the whole scenario in the sequel (if there is one) is going to carry a lot less weight IMO.

Overall I felt the Empire review was spot on, for me the film was bogged down by an origin story (regardless of the minor changes) thats still fresh in the memory and I really didn't like Ifans, what a bizarre casting choice that was his lizard is also poorly realised however, the film does pick up in the last hour the cast, Ifans aside are strong, the action was good and effects of Spidey wall crawling, swinging around New York were the best yet. I just wish the film could have picked up with Peter in Highschool already as Spiderman in his earliest adventures, no origin straight into the meat of the story. 3 stars and I probably would see a sequel, this film does have its moments.

On the plus side Garfield presents a decent Peter Parker with far less self pity and whinging than the prior incarnation which is a better presentation straight off. Stone provided a nice (if rather underwritten) romantic sidebar. The actual Spider-Man effects have improved quite dramatically.

On the negative. The villain of the piece was rather pathetic with very little motivation and never came across as anything other than a monster thus taking away the suspense of the piece. Ifans performance was very cardboard and pretty awful. The whole thing felt rushed and overly compressed (probably to shoehorn in the origin story again). I would like to know what hair products Peter Parker uses as he never had mask hair.

It was entertaining enough but it really lacked anything to elevated above that so a 3 star review is pretty on the ball.

On the plus side Garfield presents a decent Peter Parker with far less self pity and whinging than the prior incarnation which is a better presentation straight off. Stone provided a nice (if rather underwritten) romantic sidebar. The actual Spider-Man effects have improved quite dramatically.

On the negative. The villain of the piece was rather pathetic with very little motivation and never came across as anything other than a monster thus taking away the suspense of the piece. Ifans performance was very cardboard and pretty awful. The whole thing felt rushed and overly compressed (probably to shoehorn in the origin story again). I would like to know what hair products Peter Parker uses as he never had mask hair.

It was entertaining enough but it really lacked anything to elevated above that so a 3 star review is pretty on the ball.

On the negative. The villain of the piece was rather pathetic with very little motivation and never came across as anything other than a monster thus taking away the suspense of the piece. Ifans performance was very cardboard and pretty awful. The whole thing felt rushed and overly compressed (probably to shoehorn in the origin story again).

I thought he was a pretty bad villain too. It didn't really help that Spiderman seemed completely unable to really harm or bother him in any way - each fight scene was basically the Lizard chases Spiderman, catches him, beats him up a bit, gets annoyed by some webbing for a couple of moments, then leaves.

quote:

I would like to know what hair products Peter Parker uses as he never had mask hair.

I think it wasn't a problem for him because he spent most of his time with his mask off. Want to know who Spiderman is? Just watch him get into a fight, he'll show his face soon enough.

Caught this today. Dissapointing would probably be the overall feeling I had.

Initially I thought a re-boot was a bit of a silly idea, then I was kinda won over by the idea of it. I re-watched the Raimi films and felt they'd aged badly, and I found them hard to sit through. So, with that in mind, I thought a re-boot would be okay, and early trailers and footage started to lok pretty promising, with snippets of a wise cracking Spidey looking pretty damn good. However, the final product is so dissapointing that I found myself thinking back with fondness to Raimi's first two movies.

Problems with Webb's reboot aren't really with the cast, performances, action or effects work. The problems are all with the story and the writing of some characters. I mean, Parker is no geeky outcast here, he's a good looking cool kid, with the deliberately cool messy hair, a skateboarding amatuer photographer that, lets face it, would catch the eye of many people within high school. This kid is not an outcast. We, as viewers, all need to know and need to see that Peter is a good guy wanting to do the right thing, but I thought having him actively going at Flash and standing up to him for his bullying, before he gets his powers, just didn't feel right. So when Peter does finally stand up to Flash to humiliate him with his powers, it started to feel like Peter was being a cock-end rather than anything else. That scene was awful.

Peter's origins and his parents dissapearance felt half arsed and it needed a few more answers within this movie, before presumably opening things up in the second movie. As it stands here, it just feels tacked on as something to differentiate this from the previous Spiderman movies. It was wierd. Uncle Ben's death felt rushed, Aunt May was pointless and Peter's relationship with Gwen also felt like it came to easy, she was pretty much straight in love with him and there felt no build up to those two being attracted to each other. Peter's character felt muddled and making that promise to Gwen's dad and then suddenly doing the u-turn on it felt strange. There were several other times where I was just confused by Peter. Having said that, I thought Garfield did really well with what he was given. The villainy was poor here too, with a bad guy plot that never really felt like a natural step forward for Connors as a character. Connors boss (Ratha?) was curiously discarded after the initial Lizard attack, and the promise of Spidey taking on multiple Lizard bad guys (SWAT Lizards!) wasn't used... why?! That couldve been ace!! What action was there was ok, and seemed decently directed and with the movement of Spidey looking better than ever. And the last thing to really annoy me? The score. Fucking terrible. Terrible.

After the dissapointment on show here, I'm really glad they couldnt manage to link this into Avengers and the other Marvel Universe movies cos, honestly, it doesnt stand up in to those in terms of tone and quality.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

On the plus side Garfield presents a decent Peter Parker with far less self pity and whinging than the prior incarnation which is a better presentation straight off. Stone provided a nice (if rather underwritten) romantic sidebar. The actual Spider-Man effects have improved quite dramatically.

On the negative. The villain of the piece was rather pathetic with very little motivation and never came across as anything other than a monster thus taking away the suspense of the piece. Ifans performance was very cardboard and pretty awful. The whole thing felt rushed and overly compressed (probably to shoehorn in the origin story again). I would like to know what hair products Peter Parker uses as he never had mask hair.

It was entertaining enough but it really lacked anything to elevated above that so a 3 star review is pretty on the ball.

Parker was constantly like this in the comics.

During the Stan Lee days definitely which is why I never read the Stan Lee stories any more.

It has been ten years since Sam Raimi's popular Spider-Man trilogy began with an impressive note and it seems as though little has changed in the Marvel universe. Certainly in our own world we have since seen the rise in the popularity of super hero movies, particularly in anticipation of the recent 'Avenger's' film, and with so many other fantastic titles available and approaching (such as the hugely anticipated 'Dark Knight Rises' which promises to be one of the years biggest films and will serve to close the gap between the two comic giants), it's difficult to recommend The Amazing Spider-Man. The plot provides a fairly uninteresting story (as I will re-iterate later) and while the majority of performances are consistently solid, with Emma Stone as Spidey's interest and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben in stand-out roles, Andrew Garfield's role as the Man himself, however, is lacklustre. While his portrayal of an awkward, nerdy, emotionally unstable teen isn't lacking in acting ability, Garfield appears to be strained and out of place in the role of the masked vigilante. A strange choice for the lead role, not least of all for the reason that he looks far too old to be a high-school student (a problem co-star Emma Stone also faces). Rhys Ifans plays an underwhelming villain (The Lizard) who's motif seems muddled and unclear, and who's depiction in a bright and fairly unspectacular CGI manner does not feel coherent with the films gritty and realistic tone which it seems to strive for. The biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man, however, is that it provides nothing new (the aforementioned starter of Sam Raimi's trilogy had an interesting villain and play on morality that set it apart from most other hero films). We have seen this story before in a plethora of other superhero movies and done in far more interessting ways. It feels as though TASM is simply walking through the motions, and provides no real redeeming qualities. Ultimately, The Amazing Spider-Man is far s

It has been ten years since Sam Raimi's popular Spider-Man trilogy began with an impressive note and it seems as though little has changed in the Marvel universe. Certainly in our own world we have since seen the rise in the popularity of super hero movies, particularly in anticipation of the recent 'Avenger's' film, and with so many other fantastic titles available and approaching (such as the hugely anticipated 'Dark Knight Rises' which promises to be one of the years biggest films and will serve to close the gap between the two comic giants), it's difficult to recommend The Amazing Spider-Man. The plot provides a fairly uninteresting story (as I will re-iterate later) and while the majority of performances are consistently solid, with Emma Stone as Spidey's interest and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben in stand-out roles, Andrew Garfield's role as the Man himself, however, is lacklustre. While his portrayal of an awkward, nerdy, emotionally unstable teen isn't lacking in acting ability, Garfield appears to be strained and out of place in the role of the masked vigilante. A strange choice for the lead role, not least of all for the reason that he looks far too old to be a high-school student (a problem co-star Emma Stone also faces). Rhys Ifans plays an underwhelming villain (The Lizard) who's motif seems muddled and unclear, and who's depiction in a bright and fairly unspectacular CGI manner does not feel coherent with the films gritty and realistic tone which it seems to strive for. The biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man, however, is that it provides nothing new (the aforementioned starter of Sam Raimi's trilogy had an interesting villain and play on morality that set it apart from most other hero films). We have seen this story before in a plethora of other superhero movies and done in far more interessting ways. It feels as though TASM is simply walking through the motions, and provides no real redeeming qualities. Ultimately, The Amazing Spider-Man is far s

This is the Spiderman I've been waiting for, not quite action and set piece wise, that'll come, but character and acting wise superb. Garfield and Stone have more chemistry in their first scene together than Maguire and Dunst ever did. I was and still am a big fan Of Raimi's originals (3 not so much) but this is the new benchmark and the scope with these actors and this new direction is immense. Definite 5 star even with its flaws

This is the Spiderman I've been waiting for, not quite action and set piece wise, that'll come, but character and acting wise superb. Garfield and Stone have more chemistry in their first scene together than Maguire and Dunst ever did. I was and still am a big fan Of Raimi's originals (3 not so much) but this is the new benchmark and the scope with these actors and this new direction is immense. Definite 5 star even with its flaws

Wasn't sure about this one but i decided to give it a try last night,and though when the action kicks in it's entertaining,it lacked something more than just decent actors.Maybe it is just to soon to remake a ten year old Sam Rami/Marvel film,which still looks and feels far superior to this film,or the fact that the 3D once again failed to add anything more than old gimick to the proceedings.If this was suspose to be a great reboot in the way of Batman Begins if falls flat,it feels to much like a remake made too soon,and adds very little to the franchise which i feel is now dead in the water.

Now don't get me wrong i'm a fan of Spiderman comics,and i liked the way the story took more from the orginal first comic,IE the wrist devices for creating the webs,and a more fast pace throught the orgin story.Plus some of the 3D worked well(but only some),and i liked Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker,plus the action on screen was very entertaining,with some good humor in the mix.But overall the script felt rushed,the direction was no where near as good as Rami's,and apart from Garfield who is more like the Parker i read about,it got no real emoution from the rest of the cast.As a good popcorn film aimed at teens,and by the numbers comic hero film,it's ok/average,but then so is Ghost Rider,and that's where this falls into the good but not great comic films,i'll now get out Rami's Spiderman and enjoy the better film.This film felt average apart from the lead and the awesome score,and yeah great CGI,(but then it should be),and get's a night in at the cinema without taxing the brain,but no real WOW! factor.5/10

Having been just five years since we last saw Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-man is a highly enjoyable superhero movie with only a couple of minor flaws. It is immediately evident that some details are different, however this tale follows the familiar Spider-man story. A scientifically altered spider bites Peter Parker, causing him to gain spider-like powers of enhanced strength and agility, heightened senses and the ability to climb walls. He is then determined to a life of crime fighting by the death of his beloved uncle. Along the way, he finds love and must eventually face off against a super villain who threatens New York City.

In this reboot, Andrew Garfield makes a terrific Peter Parker. Some of the movie’s best moments are in the first half as we see how he gains his powers and learns how to deal with them. Ironically, the first half of the film, which covers much of the same ground as was covered in 2002′s Spider-man, is actually the most entertaining half. Watching Peter come to terms with his powers is more interesting than watching yet another superhero do battle with yet another supervillain in the heart of a major city.

The rest of the cast is equally good. Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, Peter’s original love interest from the comic books. Sally Field and Martin Sheen play Peter’s Aunt and Uncle. Sheen and Garfield share a couple of nice moments together, despite the sappy dialogue that Sheen is given. Dennis Leary does a good job as the police captain and Gwen’s father.

One aspect of this version of Spider-man that is a definite improvement over Raimi’s version is that when in costume, Spider-man seems less like a computer generated cartoon. This is most likely a combination of more shots with an actor actually in the costume, coupled with improvements in special effects in recent years. In any case, where it was blatantly obvious when Spider-man was computer generated in the older films, her

Not amazing but as a jumping off point for a new spin (sorry) on the character it was solid. Thought Garfield was really good and the rest of the cast nailed it too, for what they had. More Ifans would have been nice, as against my initial reactions I really liked him in it. While at times I couldn¡¯t help thinking about the Raimi films, it did just about have enough of a fresh feel and look to stand up.

But for me Raimi just set the bar so high for the character in Spider-Man 2, so all Spidey films will have to aim for those heights in my eyes. This was not on that level but again, a solid jumping off point.

This whole exercise felt a bit pointless especially considering they wasted a ton of time deciding to start the story from scratch. They should have just piled straight in with Spiderman as an established superhero because the Maguire films are still so fresh in people's minds.

While they assembled a cool cast ultimately I was a bit disappointed with both Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone - I never really liked Maguire in the role as I felt he was a bit of a whiney nerd, and sadly Garfield comes across a bit like that as well (although not as much). I'd like to see a cooler Spiderman in the future, from what I've read of the comics Peter Parker was never a particularly weedy/ nerdy character. Emma Stone seemed a bit restrained in her role and I never felt we saw the real actress we've got to know and love.

Still who can complain about Martin Sheen and Sally Field - great to see a couple of legends onscreen.

Rhys Ifan was great as the Lizard and the transformed creature was really cool and pretty scary - generally I think the Spidey costume and some of the moves employed were as cool as in any of the previous movies.

It's a solid 6.5/10 for me - a fun addition but offers absolutely nothing new - I actually think it's only worth a rental personally.

Spider-Man was always wise-cracking (too much IMO --- and it would have been worse in the movies had they done it) but Parker was always going "My life sucks." "Why do I have to be Spider-Man" "Aunt May is sick with and STD AGAIN???" "Why MEEEEE????"

Spider-Man was always wise-cracking (too much IMO --- and it would have been worse in the movies had they done it) but Parker was always going "My life sucks." "Why do I have to be Spider-Man" "Aunt May is sick with and STD AGAIN???" "Why MEEEEE????"

- I like the wise-cracking side of Spiderman as so many superheros are deadly serious or fairly boring personality wise. It sets him aside from the pack.

The Amazing Spider-Man? well not quite. With the Raimi franchise finished only five years ago in 2007 did we need a reboot of this super hero? in my opinion no we didn't and this film hasn't really changed my mind.

One can't deny the impressive new visuals and ideas for this new feature, Spider-Man does look good with new state of the art CGI effects and 'spidey' POV as he streaks across the night sky. The suit is pretty much the same albeit for some minor cosmetic differences, but Spider-Man's new moves during fights and skyscraper swinging are much more elaborate, sexy and closer to the classic motions we all know and love from the comics and those top notch Capcom 2D fighters even!.

That said I still see no point in this film other than to show off what I just pointed out. Yes Spider-Man looks much slicker as he should five years after the last film but other than that there is nothing new here. I might add its only Spider-Man that looks good in this film, 'Lizard' looks pretty ropey if you ask me. Close ups of his face and eyes especially are pretty nice but when the action kicks in he looks like a dodgy Godzilla with a weird facial design. Obviously trying to look somewhat like the actor Ifans but it doesn't work too well.

The plot for 'Lizard' is also kinda loose too really. He wants to turn everyone into lizards hmmm. Wouldn't that kinda make him no longer special? if everyone was the same as him he wouldn't be the strongest being around anymore, more importantly...why do this?. On another note, again I realise this is a comicbook adaptation but isn't this plot like something out of a kids Saturday morning cartoon? to be more precise...a 'TMNT' cartoon.

A lot of the film is so darn stupid also, OK its a comicbook adaptation but it just seems they have tried too hard plus trying to squeeze too much into the one film. The origins segments seem to fly past and before you know it he's Spider-Man and everyone is calling him that!. There isn't much exploration of his suit creation, he just makes it...just like that and things happen that are just too daft to make any sense. 'Parker's' first use of his spider powers on the subway home is one example. some guy does something completely pointless whilst 'Parker' sleeps (balances a beer bottle on his forehead?? duh!?). He awakes startled and leaps onto the carriage roof, sticking there, he jumps down and accidentally rips off a woman's top with his sticky fingers. Straight away some guys completely forget about the amazing feet they just saw and try to beat him up...as you would do of course.

Then of course there is all the obligatory high school fluff where 'Parker' does things slightly out of the ordinary yet no one ever seems to think how. Yes I know its all part of the comicbook lore and gives the film some funny moments but my god its so cliched.

Personally I see nothing here that beats the Raimi franchise by any great lengths. Naturally the effects are much better but cast wise I actually prefer Maguire (although Dunst was terrible). Garfield was quite annoying I found and didn't have any of the emotion, probably down to the fact Maguire is a good actor and Garfield is not...whoever he is.

I just feel this is all so ridiculous, they could do this every other year, just remake the same film with a pretty new cast and sparkly new effects, slap some gloss on the top and voila! yet another brand new origins remake. The thing is everyone will rush to see it too! (yes I see the irony in myself having seen it but I have a good reason for this...I'm a hypocrite). Its the same as before in a shiny new wrapper people! Hollywood must be rubbing their hands with glee.

With the amount of super hero films made and being made there really is no need for remakes/reboots of franchises that aren't very old. There are plenty of really good super hero characters out there Hollywood, lets see some of them get an adaptation, stop churning out the same spiel over and over!.

Purely by the numbers cookie cutter film making in every sense and offers nothing new. There are some nice fight sequences between 'Spidey' and 'Lizard' yes but that's it, I get the impression that's the only reason they made this, to show off cool fights between cool comicbook characters. Cast aside the only differences are the change in villain and the visuals are prettier, everything else is as you would expect so where's the fun?.

I preferred this to either of Raimi's films. Garfield is miles better than Maguire in the role and despite the Lizard having some truly woeful CGI I think he was an alright villain. I'm a bit on the fence as to whether or not a reboot was required but considering that Raimi killed off the most iconic villains (2 Green Goblins, Doc Ock, Venom and Sandman) I can't really see what else they could do.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!